Main Menu

Storytelling in Games

Started by MikPal, April 28, 2011, 04:40:07 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

MikPal

I recently bought Call of Duty: Black Ops after a recommendation. Played the whole thing through in one sitting. The funny thing is that I didn't enjoy the story, but like in movies I consider it a bad habit to walk out during the middle.

I kept asking myself why couldn't I enjoy this story? It tried to be something different by being non-linear, though making it a bit more confusing than necessary. It tried to be somewhat adult and cool at the same time (though the moment when a character puts on sunglasses following a guitar whine can make one think otherwise).

Personally I had three problems:
1. I had a hard time liking some of the characters that were supposed to be the heroes. I'm not saying that all protagonists should be likable (I 'm on of the few who enjoyed Kane & Lynch 2), but when game forces me to shove a piece of glass to guy's mouth and then deliver a couple of punches to make him talk with a mouth full of broken glass, I'm having a hard time understanding why I should cheer for him. Because there is something more evil at work? So the game makes me choose between the lesser of two evils. Interresting idea, but I don't think that's what the developers had in mind.
2. Most of the COD-series have been using famous movie scenes as a starting point. I'm not saying that this is wrong or something that's been done in the CoD-series only. It's an excellent way to make the player think that "hey, I've seen this before, I think I know just what to do." The whole Modern Warfare 2 is just a huge collection of these, mostly from The Rock (eg. The shower room scene TR MW2). But personally I'm having a hard time understanding why the developers thought it was a good idea to combine scenes or visual cues from The Deer Hunter or Platoon with Predator. Perhaps it's just my own prejudice, because I've seen those scenes in their original movies.
3. The anachronism. Weapons that won't be invented for another 30 years, music that is a year too early (Where's my Vietnam movie with "Sugar, Sugar" playing in the background?) and just the way people act. I'm getting the vibe that I'm watching modern people playing 60's characters. The original score sounded sometimes nice, but when I'm hearing something that feels more welcomed in a rave party than 1968, it just takes me out of the moment.

So, I had three problems with the story, and all three of them could have been solved during the writing sessions. but you know what, maybe I just wrote a rant on me nitpicking design choises that were done completely in good faith. Maybe some people even liked the choices they made better than I did. If I'm to presume that every single piece of paper with words written on it is something that should please me, there would be no surprises or innovation in both good or bad.

So why rant about it? Well, this whole thing made me think about storytelling in games general. How one were to tell a story and still give player a sense of accomplishment and self-discovery. It is a delicate balance that a designer must find to please both him-/herself and the player. Too much freedom and the player doesn't know what to do (Myst), too little and the player might feel like being in a tunnel wondering what the author wants him/her to do next (Mirror's Edge).

In my opinion, there are two ways for a game to tell a story:
A: Cutscenes (Games where the actual gameplay is player reacting to the action and cutscenes work as a reward to keep playing. This way it is also easier for the player to come up with stories of their own exploits in the game, eg. Arkanoid, Grand Theft Auto III).
B: Within the gameplay (Games where the storytelling is part of the actual gameplay.  Usually there is a limited freedom to keep the player within the storyline, eg. Half-Life, Turrican, Super Mario Bros, MW2).

Of course, like with anything else, one can easily combine these two. For example most of the adventure games are a combination of these two. The gameplay consists of making the story go forward and the rewards are usually cutscenes during the key moments. To me, the storytelling in most of the old adventure games feels like a combination of a radio play and a movie. the visual storytelling is present in different cues, but still most of the plot is communicated through spoken word. One of the few games that I think perfectly used only visual storytelling and combined the two ways almost near perfect was Silent Hill: Shattered Memories. The game didn't have a HUD and everything on the walls were readable and had a connection with the story. Total immersion without distractions. Other similar games that come to mind are ICO and Shadow of the Colossus.

Of course, there are also bad ways to combine these two and break the immersion. For example some scenes in Black Ops broke the immersion by first offering us a POV shot and then distancing us from the character by showing the action from another angle. though I think immersion is important, I can also understand the developers need to show the player these extra shots. After all, it's visual storytelling 101: Action, reaction. The question is which one is more important, immersion or visual storytelling? As a person who comes from the filmmaking side, I have to side with the visual storytelling, but as a person who enjoys games I would also like to be immersed to the story.

I think I've rant enough and I'll propably soon run out of words to use (english is not my first or second language, so I'm sorry for all the errors). But I'm curious as to what you guys think about storytelling in games? Am I completely nuts with this thing, perhaps trying to find a meaning in something that doesn't have one?

dark-daventry

Quote from: MikPal on April 28, 2011, 04:40:07 PM
I recently bought Call of Duty: Black Ops after a recommendation. Played the whole thing through in one sitting. The funny thing is that I didn't enjoy the story, but like in movies I consider it a bad habit to walk out during the middle.

I kept asking myself why couldn't I enjoy this story? It tried to be something different by being non-linear, though making it a bit more confusing than necessary. It tried to be somewhat adult and cool at the same time (though the moment when a character puts on sunglasses following a guitar whine can make one think otherwise).

Personally I had three problems:
1. I had a hard time liking some of the characters that were supposed to be the heroes. I'm not saying that all protagonists should be likable (I 'm on of the few who enjoyed Kane & Lynch 2), but when game forces me to shove a piece of glass to guy's mouth and then deliver a couple of punches to make him talk with a mouth full of broken glass, I'm having a hard time understanding why I should cheer for him. Because there is something more evil at work? So the game makes me choose between the lesser of two evils. Interresting idea, but I don't think that's what the developers had in mind.
2. Most of the COD-series have been using famous movie scenes as a starting point. I'm not saying that this is wrong or something that's been done in the CoD-series only. It's an excellent way to make the player think that "hey, I've seen this before, I think I know just what to do." The whole Modern Warfare 2 is just a huge collection of these, mostly from The Rock (eg. The shower room scene TR MW2). But personally I'm having a hard time understanding why the developers thought it was a good idea to combine scenes or visual cues from The Deer Hunter or Platoon with Predator. Perhaps it's just my own prejudice, because I've seen those scenes in their original movies.
3. The anachronism. Weapons that won't be invented for another 30 years, music that is a year too early (Where's my Vietnam movie with "Sugar, Sugar" playing in the background?) and just the way people act. I'm getting the vibe that I'm watching modern people playing 60's characters. The original score sounded sometimes nice, but when I'm hearing something that feels more welcomed in a rave party than 1968, it just takes me out of the moment.

So, I had three problems with the story, and all three of them could have been solved during the writing sessions. but you know what, maybe I just wrote a rant on me nitpicking design choises that were done completely in good faith. Maybe some people even liked the choices they made better than I did. If I'm to presume that every single piece of paper with words written on it is something that should please me, there would be no surprises or innovation in both good or bad.

So why rant about it? Well, this whole thing made me think about storytelling in games general. How one were to tell a story and still give player a sense of accomplishment and self-discovery. It is a delicate balance that a designer must find to please both him-/herself and the player. Too much freedom and the player doesn't know what to do (Myst), too little and the player might feel like being in a tunnel wondering what the author wants him/her to do next (Mirror's Edge).

In my opinion, there are two ways for a game to tell a story:
A: Cutscenes (Games where the actual gameplay is player reacting to the action and cutscenes work as a reward to keep playing. This way it is also easier for the player to come up with stories of their own exploits in the game, eg. Arkanoid, Grand Theft Auto III).
B: Within the gameplay (Games where the storytelling is part of the actual gameplay.  Usually there is a limited freedom to keep the player within the storyline, eg. Half-Life, Turrican, Super Mario Bros, MW2).

Of course, like with anything else, one can easily combine these two. For example most of the adventure games are a combination of these two. The gameplay consists of making the story go forward and the rewards are usually cutscenes during the key moments. To me, the storytelling in most of the old adventure games feels like a combination of a radio play and a movie. the visual storytelling is present in different cues, but still most of the plot is communicated through spoken word. One of the few games that I think perfectly used only visual storytelling and combined the two ways almost near perfect was Silent Hill: Shattered Memories. The game didn't have a HUD and everything on the walls were readable and had a connection with the story. Total immersion without distractions. Other similar games that come to mind are ICO and Shadow of the Colossus.

Of course, there are also bad ways to combine these two and break the immersion. For example some scenes in Black Ops broke the immersion by first offering us a POV shot and then distancing us from the character by showing the action from another angle. though I think immersion is important, I can also understand the developers need to show the player these extra shots. After all, it's visual storytelling 101: Action, reaction. The question is which one is more important, immersion or visual storytelling? As a person who comes from the filmmaking side, I have to side with the visual storytelling, but as a person who enjoys games I would also like to be immersed to the story.

I think I've rant enough and I'll propably soon run out of words to use (english is not my first or second language, so I'm sorry for all the errors). But I'm curious as to what you guys think about storytelling in games? Am I completely nuts with this thing, perhaps trying to find a meaning in something that doesn't have one?

For someone who doesn't use English as a first or second language, you're doing it better than some people who speak it natively. Seriously, I know people who speak native English but can't use proper grammar or spelling. You're doing quite well, my friend!

As for storytelling, I wish game developers today took cues from the Adventure genre more often. I feel as if plot in a video game has taken a back seat to the action. While action in a game is important, one must also have a plot that makes you want to play. I've never been interested in Call of Duty. Part of that is because I'm not a big first person shooter fan, but I also never liked the plot or the mechanics either. I've had no problem playing other First Person Shooters like Goldeneye or Perfect Dark though; the plot in those games shines through.

If I ever get to being a game designer, I'm going to focus on the plot first and the best way to deliver that plot. The mechanics of the game should be based around the plot. The way it is now, the plot is almost like an after-thought. It's a shame, really.
Founder of the (new) Left Handed Alliance Of Left Handed People (LHALHP)

Gay and proud of it!

Avid Adventure Game fan

darthkiwi

I think you make some very good points. Recently games seem to have been moving away from cutscenes, apparently wary of becoming "the new Metal Gear Solid", where you have to watch a half-hour cutscene before you can even play.

I haven't played Black Ops but I watched my brother playing sections, and I think the main problem I have with it is that it's trying to be a movie more than it's trying to be a game. Everything is basically an on-rails section to another on-rails section, and although you have freedom to approach combat more or less as you like, the basic structure is basically that of a film, but where you happen to be directing the fight scenes.

This became most prevalent at the end, where you face down the final boss. I don't want to spoil anything, but the fight was made up entirely of quick time events. It felt like what the player was doing was less playing a game and more jumping through hoops to see the next bit of the movie.

And this really came to a head at the *very* end of the game:

SPOILER!

[spoiler]At the end of the game, it's strongly suggested that your character was brainwashed and was the man responsible for killing JFK. It then cuts to a short cutscene where this is fleshed out a bit, and we watch some slides of JFK. But wouldn't it have been far more compelling to actually play through the assassination - to actually be forced to pull the trigger and kill a US president - than just watch a slideshow?[/spoiler]

I mean, I don't think the game is a *bad* game. It delivers a certain sort of experience to the player and although it's highly filmic, it's still entertaining. At the end of the day it doesn't matter whether a game is as "game"-like as people think games should be: what matters is whether the player was engaged. But I just think that, because the CoD guys think almost entirely in terms of movies, their games are going to be limited to slightly fleshed out versions of movies - and not particularly good movies, at that. I mean, CoD4's plot is a standard "terrorists!!!" plot, and Black Ops has a fairly well done Cold War B-movie storyline. The twist is good, yes, but there's not much more to recommend it storywise, because they're fixated on film and don't seem to fully understand games.

Of course, not having played Black Ops myself (and not having even watched all of it) this is a pretty ill-informed opinion. But maybe there's something in it.

QuoteIf I ever get to being a game designer, I'm going to focus on the plot first and the best way to deliver that plot. The mechanics of the game should be based around the plot. The way it is now, the plot is almost like an after-thought. It's a shame, really.

Agreed. I don't think there should be more focus on plot than on gameplay - after all, if you want to write a plot then you can simply write a story. But I think plot and gameplay should be in balance, and each should complement the other. Too often gameplay is ridiculously divorced from plot: in most action games, for example, we're meant to be the good guys but kill thousands of hired soldiers, many of whom will have families. It seems a bit contradictory.
Prince of the Aquitaine. Duke of York.

Knight errant and consort to Her Grace the Empress Deloria of the Holy Roman Empire, Queene of all Albion and Princess Palatine.

dark-daventry

Quote from: darthkiwi on April 28, 2011, 05:05:08 PM
[spoiler]At the end of the game, it's strongly suggested that your character was brainwashed and was the man responsible for killing JFK. It then cuts to a short cutscene where this is fleshed out a bit, and we watch some slides of JFK. But wouldn't it have been far more compelling to actually play through the assassination - to actually be forced to pull the trigger and kill a US president - than just watch a slideshow?[/spoiler]

[spoiler]Believe me, there'd be controversy over the whole JFK thing. I can actually see why they made it a slide-show; there was another video game that let you re-enact the assassination. Suffice it to say, there was outrage. The Call of Duty franchise doesn't need that kind of media attention on it's tail. Too many people will complain about it.[/spoiler]

Quote from: darthkiwi on April 28, 2011, 05:05:08 PM
Agreed. I don't think there should be more focus on plot than on gameplay - after all, if you want to write a plot then you can simply write a story. But I think plot and gameplay should be in balance, and each should complement the other. Too often gameplay is ridiculously divorced from plot: in most action games, for example, we're meant to be the good guys but kill thousands of hired soldiers, many of whom will have families. It seems a bit contradictory.

Oh believe me, I'd focus on both equally, but I would write the plot first and foremost, or at least have a good idea of what it is before going to the mechanics. I'd work the mechanics around the plot, and work the plot around the mechanics. If something doesn't fit, I'd modify either the plot or the mechanics to make it fit.
Founder of the (new) Left Handed Alliance Of Left Handed People (LHALHP)

Gay and proud of it!

Avid Adventure Game fan

MikPal

Quote from: dark-daventry on April 28, 2011, 05:01:38 PM
If I ever get to being a game designer, I'm going to focus on the plot first and the best way to deliver that plot. The mechanics of the game should be based around the plot. The way it is now, the plot is almost like an after-thought. It's a shame, really.

Well, from a filmmakers POV, I'm going to have to say that everything will change. A plot is a great thing to start with, but there will be moments that will force you to make changes. A moment of doubt, not enough time, someone comes up with something better...  The script is a blueprint, filming is adapting and editing communication. Usually the best filmmakers are those who can adapt, not follow orders. IMAGE FOLLOWS MEANING!! MEANING COMES FROM MAN!! MAN COMES FROM MAN!! IT'S A VITUN OROBOROS, JUMALAUTA!! The gameplay doesn't need the story, but the story needs a medium so it can be told. But then again a sausage doesn't need any mustard, but it just makes it taste way better.

And I've drank too much Pepsi and at the same time I'm wondering what the hell does this japanese gibberish mean behind this ink bottle! It's indescribabebel!


Quote from: darthkiwi on April 28, 2011, 05:05:08 PM
I haven't played Black Ops but I watched my brother playing sections, and I think the main problem I have with it is that it's trying to be a movie more than it's trying to be a game. Everything is basically an on-rails section to another on-rails section, and although you have freedom to approach combat more or less as you like, the basic structure is basically that of a film, but where you happen to be directing the fight scenes.

Personally I have no problem with a game that offers me on-rail action as long as the story is interresting. for example I was absolutely blown away by Prey. The story felt like a summer action blockbuster, but it there were moments that made me... tingley. It had that excitement and the feeling of discovery. There were moments in the new Medal of Honor that had me interrested but were gone the next second. I mean they find a russian tank in one of the valleys. "That's not a good sign", says one of the soldiers, "Well, at least we made it longer than they". I mean that's just beautiful.

Quote from: darthkiwi on April 28, 2011, 05:05:08 PM
[spoiler]At the end of the game, it's strongly suggested that your character was brainwashed and was the man responsible for killing JFK. It then cuts to a short cutscene where this is fleshed out a bit, and we watch some slides of JFK. But wouldn't it have been far more compelling to actually play through the assassination - to actually be forced to pull the trigger and kill a US president - than just watch a slideshow?[/spoiler]

[spoiler]Personally I was confused by the ending because it takes place in 1968 and Mason is worried that he'll kill Kennedy? He's five years late. The actual twist that Mason was brainwashed and Reznov was just a vision was something that didn't come to me as a big surprise. Felt a bit cliched.[/spoiler]

Well if you've got David S. Goyer writing the story, I'm not surprised alot. Howard Chaykin on the writing staff was a surprise, but then again he's the guy who gave the Shadow two uzis. The overall story just felt like it didn't have a meaning. Especially after MW2 it feels like a bit of a cheat.

LadyTerra

Quote from: dark-daventry on April 28, 2011, 05:01:38 PM
If I ever get to being a game designer, I'm going to focus on the plot first and the best way to deliver that plot. The mechanics of the game should be based around the plot. The way it is now, the plot is almost like an after-thought. It's a shame, really.

That's because it usually has to conform when the mechanics of the game change.  If you have mechanics based around a plot, there's not really much room for the player to explore, and players tend not to like to be constrained (why do you think FF13 gets so much hate?).  Likewise, a game with no story isn't motivation enough for some players to play, but there are plenty of acceptable games in this category that don't need a plot (Bejeweled, any card games, anything on Facebook.)
I have my cake and eat it too, until it's gone.  Then I can't do either.


Aww!  You have the Sword of Hugging +3!  All of your attacks deal affectionate damage!

MikPal

Quote from: LadyTerra on April 28, 2011, 09:37:41 PM
If you have mechanics based around a plot, there's not really much room for the player to explore, and players tend not to like to be constrained (why do you think FF13 gets so much hate?).

That's option A. You have gameplay, that works without a story. The plot is there only to tie different gamplay types together without confusing the player (eg. Arcade games that tell you, that you've survived an enemy wave and must get ready for another). Sometimes the gameplay isn't as enjoyable, but the inclusion of a plot makes it a bit more tolerable (eg. NARC).

After thinking about it some more, I've come to believe that the two ways of storytelling, that I mentioned in the OP, are just the purest forms. The unreachable ends. The fact that on the screen you have mesh of pixels resembling a spaceship, is storytelling. But at the same time, having some text explaining your mission would also be storytelling, just on the other end of spectrum. You can't do just one or the other without going batshit abstract.

snabbott

There are a lot of games that have little or no plot. As long as they are fun, a lot of people don't really care. A lot of the criticism of TSL has been that there is more plot than gameplay (though it's getting more balanced as it progresses). Personally, I like a strong plot, but some people couldn't care less.

Steve Abbott | Beta Tester | The Silver Lining

dark-daventry

I honestly prefer a strong plot; a lot of the time, if the plot is good, I'll want to keep playing. If the plot sucks and the gameplay is good, I may just get bored eventually. But a good plot makes me want to wade through bad gameplay to see the end.
Founder of the (new) Left Handed Alliance Of Left Handed People (LHALHP)

Gay and proud of it!

Avid Adventure Game fan

darthkiwi

Quote from: dark-daventry on April 28, 2011, 05:17:24 PM
Quote from: darthkiwi on April 28, 2011, 05:05:08 PM
[spoiler]At the end of the game, it's strongly suggested that your character was brainwashed and was the man responsible for killing JFK. It then cuts to a short cutscene where this is fleshed out a bit, and we watch some slides of JFK. But wouldn't it have been far more compelling to actually play through the assassination - to actually be forced to pull the trigger and kill a US president - than just watch a slideshow?[/spoiler]

[spoiler]Believe me, there'd be controversy over the whole JFK thing. I can actually see why they made it a slide-show; there was another video game that let you re-enact the assassination. Suffice it to say, there was outrage. The Call of Duty franchise doesn't need that kind of media attention on it's tail. Too many people will complain about it.[/spoiler]

Quote from: darthkiwi on April 28, 2011, 05:05:08 PM
Agreed. I don't think there should be more focus on plot than on gameplay - after all, if you want to write a plot then you can simply write a story. But I think plot and gameplay should be in balance, and each should complement the other. Too often gameplay is ridiculously divorced from plot: in most action games, for example, we're meant to be the good guys but kill thousands of hired soldiers, many of whom will have families. It seems a bit contradictory.

Oh believe me, I'd focus on both equally, but I would write the plot first and foremost, or at least have a good idea of what it is before going to the mechanics. I'd work the mechanics around the plot, and work the plot around the mechanics. If something doesn't fit, I'd modify either the plot or the mechanics to make it fit.

I feel really weird carrying on half the conversation in spoiler tags, but oh well. XD

[spoiler] It's true that it would be incredibly controversial, but they wouldn't even have to have you shooting him. You could have the player walk into the relevant room, with your imaginary character (Reznov, I think it is?) telling you that the President is a traitor to freedom or something. You could zoom in on the president as he approaches the window and only have the shot delivered aurally, so the player is not implicated. I guess. I just think it's ridiculous for the gaming series which allowed you to commit mass murder on helpless civilians in an airport (MW2) to back out from some violent gameplay which would actually improve the game. It seems very contradictory and kind of confirms the fact that all they really want is a money-spinner.[/spoiler]

Also, regarding storytelling - yes, just havig a spaceship onscreen tells a little story. I remember hearing a game developer saying that even Bejewelled has a "story" of a sort. Not a very deep one, and not one that really changes at all - but, you are interacting with jewels. If you were interacting with broken glass and dirt then the game would feel completely different.

Having said that, I don't think any game has actually told a story which could only have been told in a game. Most games have plots, but that's not the same as a game story: in a game story there are no limits as to plot direction, it could branch in any number of directions. Too many game designers have been hampered by the traditional, linear view of narrative and don't even consider making a plot which would differ for each player (or at least branch in such a way that each player was experiencing a plot which in some way highlighted something other branches wouldn't).
Prince of the Aquitaine. Duke of York.

Knight errant and consort to Her Grace the Empress Deloria of the Holy Roman Empire, Queene of all Albion and Princess Palatine.

dark-daventry

Quote from: darthkiwi on April 29, 2011, 04:18:23 PM
Quote from: dark-daventry on April 28, 2011, 05:17:24 PM
Quote from: darthkiwi on April 28, 2011, 05:05:08 PM
[spoiler]At the end of the game, it's strongly suggested that your character was brainwashed and was the man responsible for killing JFK. It then cuts to a short cutscene where this is fleshed out a bit, and we watch some slides of JFK. But wouldn't it have been far more compelling to actually play through the assassination - to actually be forced to pull the trigger and kill a US president - than just watch a slideshow?[/spoiler]

[spoiler]Believe me, there'd be controversy over the whole JFK thing. I can actually see why they made it a slide-show; there was another video game that let you re-enact the assassination. Suffice it to say, there was outrage. The Call of Duty franchise doesn't need that kind of media attention on it's tail. Too many people will complain about it.[/spoiler]

Quote from: darthkiwi on April 28, 2011, 05:05:08 PM
Agreed. I don't think there should be more focus on plot than on gameplay - after all, if you want to write a plot then you can simply write a story. But I think plot and gameplay should be in balance, and each should complement the other. Too often gameplay is ridiculously divorced from plot: in most action games, for example, we're meant to be the good guys but kill thousands of hired soldiers, many of whom will have families. It seems a bit contradictory.

Oh believe me, I'd focus on both equally, but I would write the plot first and foremost, or at least have a good idea of what it is before going to the mechanics. I'd work the mechanics around the plot, and work the plot around the mechanics. If something doesn't fit, I'd modify either the plot or the mechanics to make it fit.

I feel really weird carrying on half the conversation in spoiler tags, but oh well. XD

[spoiler] It's true that it would be incredibly controversial, but they wouldn't even have to have you shooting him. You could have the player walk into the relevant room, with your imaginary character (Reznov, I think it is?) telling you that the President is a traitor to freedom or something. You could zoom in on the president as he approaches the window and only have the shot delivered aurally, so the player is not implicated. I guess. I just think it's ridiculous for the gaming series which allowed you to commit mass murder on helpless civilians in an airport (MW2) to back out from some violent gameplay which would actually improve the game. It seems very contradictory and kind of confirms the fact that all they really want is a money-spinner.[/spoiler]

Also, regarding storytelling - yes, just havig a spaceship onscreen tells a little story. I remember hearing a game developer saying that even Bejewelled has a "story" of a sort. Not a very deep one, and not one that really changes at all - but, you are interacting with jewels. If you were interacting with broken glass and dirt then the game would feel completely different.

Having said that, I don't think any game has actually told a story which could only have been told in a game. Most games have plots, but that's not the same as a game story: in a game story there are no limits as to plot direction, it could branch in any number of directions. Too many game designers have been hampered by the traditional, linear view of narrative and don't even consider making a plot which would differ for each player (or at least branch in such a way that each player was experiencing a plot which in some way highlighted something other branches wouldn't).

Well, game design has been moving to such an open narrative; games like Fable (the entire series, btw, not just the first one), Infamous, Fallout, etc. have narratives that change for each player based on the choices they make. It's by no means perfect yet, but I think it shows the direction the industry is heading. One which I support. Having an offline game where the single player component is different both narratively and physically from another players is something we haven't totally achieved, but we are moving in that direction. I think the only game that can possibly come close would be The Sims, honestly.
Founder of the (new) Left Handed Alliance Of Left Handed People (LHALHP)

Gay and proud of it!

Avid Adventure Game fan

Bludshot

A game's mechanics should have a prominent role in storytelling.  Sometimes this can be as simple as using common assumptions about video games and flipping them upside down.

Consider Final Fantasy VII, up until that point it was generally assumed that a playable character was not going to be killed or otherwise negatively affected.   When Aeris, a party member, is killed, it is an event completely unforeseen and downright unacceptable.  Her demise was something none of us expected, and as a beloved character it was a major blow. 
Deep Thoughts with Connor Mac Lyrr
"Alack! The heads do not die!"

KatieHal

I always liked Tifa better, personally. :)

Katie Hallahan
~Designer, PR Director~

"Change is the constant, the signal for rebirth, the egg of the phoenix." Christina Baldwin

I have a blog!

darthkiwi

QuoteWell, game design has been moving to such an open narrative; games like Fable (the entire series, btw, not just the first one), Infamous, Fallout, etc. have narratives that change for each player based on the choices they make. It's by no means perfect yet, but I think it shows the direction the industry is heading.

I agree, but I still think there are some breathtaking things that could be done with that model which haven't been. Most open-world games like Fallout 3 or Fable tend to have two ways of letting you interact with the world:

1) You experience events and choose whether to approach them as a "good" character, or as an "evil" character. Typically, you earn good or bad karma from this and become more good or evil as a result.

or 2) You experience events with little choice over how to proceed, but how much you experience depends on how much you are willing to experiment with the game. This could also be called the "mucking around in a sandbox" model.

Personally, I think both models have something going for them, but, when I compare the experiences I've had with those types of games to the experiences I've had watching mindblowing plays or reading worldview-shattering books, I just don't think these models are very compelling.

There's a game academic called Janet Murray who proposes a different way of storytelling in her book, "Hamlet on the Holodeck". (Which is, yes, the MOST AWFUL TITLE ever conceived. Good God, what was she thinking? But the book itself more than makes up for it.) In it, she takes one chapter to study how eastern European folktales are constructed. Summarising other people who have looked into this in more detail (after all, she has a chapter but other experts have written whole books) she says that almost all folk tales are comprised of different segments, such as:

The hero arrives in town
The princess is kidnapped
A doppelganger of the hero appears
The hero kills the villain
The hero rescues the princess
The villain commits a terrible act which he should be punished for
The hero reaches a state of exhaustion or frustration and seems unable to continue
The hero acquires a magical item which will help him
The hero leaves the village and goes into the wilderness
The hero encounters a Gatekeeper character

These different segments are then combined to create a folk tale, but they are always combined in accordance with a set of rules. For example, the princess getting kidnapped or the villain committing a terrible crime always happens at the beginning; this is the inciting incident. This is followed by the hero leaving the village and setting out on his quest to set things right. The hero will only acquire a magical item before the encounters the gatekeeper, and the hero will always encounter and defeat the villain after the gatekeeper (ie. at the end of the tale).

This means that the whole folk tale could, theoretically, be modelled procedurally. Somebody could theoretically write out all of those situations, and then decide which ones occur in which order via the rules which govern folk tales; the result would be not a single folk tale, but a game which allows the player to play through their own personal folk tale; the game as a whole would orbit around the same things each time, but each iteration would probably be different from other iterations. You could extend this concept to other tales: Murray suggests making a Noir game set in Casablanca featuring police raids, stolen documents, mysterious characters wearing long coats and plenty of bars. By writing out a plot rule-set for these plot elements, you could create a game with a flexible story, shaped slightly by the player's actions and which always shifted around the same core of ideas and locations.

I'm just really excited by this idea. You could have a game whose plot points and even whose world shifts around you to better accommodate whatever you're doing. And, over several playthroughs, you could push it in various directions. Wouldn't that be amazing? (And better than the "You can be good and be Mother Theresa or you can be bad and eat babies" method?)
Prince of the Aquitaine. Duke of York.

Knight errant and consort to Her Grace the Empress Deloria of the Holy Roman Empire, Queene of all Albion and Princess Palatine.

MikPal

#14
After spending some time with Mount & Blade: Warband, i fear that I have been mistaken when I tried to categorize the two ways to tell a story in game. Perhaps it was my history with the non-interactive mediums that made me see only one side of the whole matter.

Here is my new submission for you guys to rip to pieces:
A) Games that let the player make their own story and pacing. Can include small pieces or an overarching story as long as it doesn't affect the pacing of the game. Eg. Civilization, GTA 3, Mount&Blade, Metroid (platformers that allow free movement).
B) Games where the game makers define the story and its pacing. Can be both linear or non-linear as long as the original makers are in control of the pacing. Eg. Call of Duty-series, Super Mario Bros (linear platformers).

These are extreme simplifications of the way one can tell a story through the medium of games, but still it's good to start with a simple mindmap.

Quote from: Bludshot on April 30, 2011, 11:50:13 PM
Consider Final Fantasy VII, up until that point it was generally assumed that a playable character was not going to be killed or otherwise negatively affected.  

Not to say that you are wrong, but same kind of stuff was happening in games way before FF7. For example in Phantasy Star 2 and Final Fantasy 4. Both had characters in your party that died in dramatic and scripted ways. Personally I would like to believe that the reason why people remember FF7 better has more to do with the fact that it was one of the first JRPG games to really brake out to the mainstream the western world. The FMV of the actual dastardly deed by the baddies Sephiroth might have been also more easy to emote with since it wasn't just a top down view of the action with speech text.

Quote from: dark-daventry on April 29, 2011, 07:20:15 PM
Well, game design has been moving to such an open narrative; games like Fable (the entire series, btw, not just the first one), Infamous, Fallout, etc. have narratives that change for each player based on the choices they make. It's by no means perfect yet, but I think it shows the direction the industry is heading.

It's interresting, that if you look at the history of video games, you can see that the open narrative is not as new as one might think. For example Ultima games had the same and more as Fable. Heck, I was once told that Ultima 7 was nearly unplayable because of the freedom. Ultima 4 is also a rather interresting example that throws away the idea of a evil threathening the land and just tells you to be a good person.

Quote from: darthkiwi on May 01, 2011, 01:53:05 PM
The hero arrives in town
The princess is kidnapped
A doppelganger of the hero appears
The hero kills the villain
The hero rescues the princess
The villain commits a terrible act which he should be punished for
The hero reaches a state of exhaustion or frustration and seems unable to continue
The hero acquires a magical item which will help him
The hero leaves the village and goes into the wilderness
The hero encounters a Gatekeeper character

That sounds pretty much the same as Hero's journey by Campbell.

Enchantermon

Quote from: darthkiwi on May 01, 2011, 01:53:05 PM(And better than the "You can be good and be Mother Theresa or you can be bad and eat babies" method?)
Someone watches Zero Punctuation. ;)

It's easy to say all this, but it's not so easy to do, especially in a computer game where every nuance has to be programmed and every possibility planned beforehand. It would be expensive and it would be a huge risk; if the game doesn't do well, all of that money is wasted. It's a good concept, but I don't think it will ever be realized in the grandiose way that Murray is suggesting.
So what if I am, huh? Anyways, I work better when I'm drunk. It makes me fearless! If I see a bad guy, I'll just point my sword at him and saaaaaaaaaay, "Hey! Bad guy! You're not s'posed to be here! Go home or I'll stick you with my sword 'til you go, 'Ouch! I'm dead!' Ah-ha-ha!" Ha-ha. *hic* See? Ain't no one gonna be messin' wit' ol', Benny!

MikPal

Quote from: Enchantermon on May 01, 2011, 03:59:01 PM
It's easy to say all this, but it's not so easy to do, especially in a computer game where every nuance has to be programmed and every possibility planned beforehand.

What I find funny is that some of the features that we now take for granted actually started as bugs or mistakes.

glottal

I could see something like Darthkiwi suggests being actually programmable if it was partially based on randomization.

I remember in high school, one of my teachers said that if you randomly put together a bunch of things (she was talking about a performance, but I think this can apply to any medium which can tell a story) which are not actually connected to each other, the audience will still look for connections, and make them in their own heads.

The hardest part would be generating dialogue.  However, computers can fake the music of great composers - I remember seeing on a documentary that a computer created fake Bach music that fooled a Bach lover into thinking it was real Bach - so I can also see a computer faking the writing styles of good writers, and there could be a bank of, say, 10 writing styles which are randomly assigned to characters.

I suspect, with current technology, it would be a monster to program now, but the existence of the composer-imitating software suggests to me that, in the future, it could be quite feasible to program.

dark-daventry

Quote from: glottal on May 01, 2011, 05:34:22 PM
I could see something like Darthkiwi suggests being actually programmable if it was partially based on randomization.

I remember in high school, one of my teachers said that if you randomly put together a bunch of things (she was talking about a performance, but I think this can apply to any medium which can tell a story) which are not actually connected to each other, the audience will still look for connections, and make them in their own heads.

The hardest part would be generating dialogue.  However, computers can fake the music of great composers - I remember seeing on a documentary that a computer created fake Bach music that fooled a Bach lover into thinking it was real Bach - so I can also see a computer faking the writing styles of good writers, and there could be a bank of, say, 10 writing styles which are randomly assigned to characters.

I suspect, with current technology, it would be a monster to program now, but the existence of the composer-imitating software suggests to me that, in the future, it could be quite feasible to program.

Oh great. Games that quite literally write themselves. Honestly, I'd rather have a human writing and programming the majority of these games. Part of that is an attempt to stop the robot uprising and our subsequent destruction, but it's also because, right now, a computer has flaws. A human does too, but we can check our work and improve it. There should always be a human at least checking the work of the computer.
Founder of the (new) Left Handed Alliance Of Left Handed People (LHALHP)

Gay and proud of it!

Avid Adventure Game fan

darthkiwi

QuoteSomeone watches Zero Punctuation.

I do indeed XD but I've also played my fair share of RPGs with a "good/evil" slider. Those things are ridiculous :-\

QuoteThat sounds pretty much the same as Hero's journey by Campbell.

Yes, which makes sense, after all: Campbell was trying to boil myths down to their simplest elements, and the academics Murray quotes are working in a similar sphere to Campbell, trying to boil down folk tales. Of course, the individual tales will vary wildly - a magical item might be a ring of invisibility or a giant talking bird, and the moment of depression could be the hero being overwhelmed by a superior foe or getting lost in a swamp - but the basic structure will be the same.

QuoteIt's easy to say all this, but it's not so easy to do
I know, that's the problem. :-\ But maybe a simpler version could be implemented into an established FPS franchise or something. Maybe the level order could be partly decided by your actions in previous levels. Or, maybe somebody could prove the concept in text adventure form or something.

Also, you wouldn't need to program every nuance. I recently played this game:

http://scoutshonour.com/donttakeitpersonallybabeitjustaintyourstory/

It uses branching storylines which take the plot in a number of different directions, but about 90% of the writing is fixed. The designer only needs to change that 10% because a lot of stuff seems reasonable in both story branches. So with careful writing and design - and well-placed nuances which *do* react to the player's plot changes - I think it could be done.

I'm just annoyed that we have the technology to do all this - and, to be honest, have had the technology for years now! And yet we're still thinking in terms of linear story from previous, linear art forms. Yes, that works, but I can't help thinking that interactivity adds a whole new dimension to the mix and, unless we use it to shape plot in a meaningful way, we're not using the medium to its full potential.

QuoteWhat I find funny is that some of the features that we now take for granted actually started as bugs or mistakes.
What kind of features? This sounds interesting XD

QuoteI remember in high school, one of my teachers said that if you randomly put together a bunch of things (she was talking about a performance, but I think this can apply to any medium which can tell a story) which are not actually connected to each other, the audience will still look for connections, and make them in their own heads.
This is absolutely true. If you show somebody a series of things in a work of art, they will try to put them together.

I'm not sure about the idea of games which procedurally generate dialogue, though. Maybe it would work eventually, but I'm not sure how you would make each character feel unique if their dialogue is generated with sliders for accents and slang or something. I'd suggest using the Murray model to allow the plot to be shaped, but writing all the dialogue manually, leaving room for alteration. Of course, this could be made easier in a number of ways: if the main character receives text messages then the writer could tell a story through those, and that's a very simple way of dropping small, simple messages into the game. Ditto for letters, and also for non-verbal storytelling devices like objects left around a house. Even item-descriptions could be altered to take account of plot changes; it would be a pain to write out dozens of them, but you wouldn't need that many, and it'd be far simpler than writing something as organic as dialogue.
Prince of the Aquitaine. Duke of York.

Knight errant and consort to Her Grace the Empress Deloria of the Holy Roman Empire, Queene of all Albion and Princess Palatine.